From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blethen v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Portsmouth District Court
Dec 30, 1976
376 A.2d 884 (N.H. 1976)

Opinion

No. 7524

Decided December 30, 1976

1. In the absence of a transcript of the evidence, the supreme court did not have before it the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict but was limited to a consideration of whether any errors of law appear in the record.

2. Although the ultimate burden of proof never shifts, the burden of going forward may shift. In the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly ruled that the defendant had the burden of producing evidence that the plaintiff had received a signed sellers' copy of acceptance of his offer to purchase the real estate.

Shaines, Madrigan McEachern and Sanford Roberts, by brief, for the plaintiff.

Edward H. Lawrence, pro se, by brief.


This is an action to recover a $1,000 down payment made by the plaintiff to the defendant pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement relating to real estate in Portsmouth. The plaintiff claims the agreement was never consummated and under its terms he is entitled to a return of his deposit.

The Presiding Justice, Wyman P. Boynton, rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $1,000. The court found that an offer made by the plaintiff to the owners was allegedly signed by them but their acceptance was not communicated to the plaintiff by the defendant broker. The transaction having failed to take place because of this failure on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff was awarded the return of his deposit.

The case was transferred under RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp. 1975). There is no transcript of the evidence. Therefore, no question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is before us, and we are limited to a consideration of whether any errors of law appear in the record. Saykaly v. Manchester, 97 N.H. 4, 79 A.2d 625 (1951); Thayer v. State Tax Comm'n, 113 N.H. 113, 302 A.2d 824 (1973). We have not considered material which the defendant has included in his brief, but which is not in the record.

The plaintiff denied that he ever received any "signed" copy of the acceptance of his offer, and the court ruled that the burden was on the defendant to produce evidence that such a copy was received. J. Calamari and J. Perillo, Contracts §§ 30, 35 (1970). The issue is whether it is sustainable. It is well established that while the ultimate burden of proof never shifts, the burden of going forward may do so. Monroe Loan Society v. Nute, 88 N.H. 13, 183 A. 703 (1936); Gove v. Crosby, 100 N.H. 380, 128 A.2d 205 (1956). In the circumstances here, it appears that the court acted properly and that there was no error of law.

The order is

Judgment on the verdict.


Summaries of

Blethen v. Lawrence

Supreme Court of New Hampshire Portsmouth District Court
Dec 30, 1976
376 A.2d 884 (N.H. 1976)
Case details for

Blethen v. Lawrence

Case Details

Full title:LARRY A. BLETHEN v. EDWARD H. LAWRENCE

Court:Supreme Court of New Hampshire Portsmouth District Court

Date published: Dec 30, 1976

Citations

376 A.2d 884 (N.H. 1976)
376 A.2d 884

Citing Cases

Tzimas v. Coiffures by Michael

[4-7] "It is well established that while the ultimate burden of proof never shifts, the burden of going…

McCrady v. Mahon

No findings or rulings were requested or made, nor was there any transcript. Thus the sufficiency of the…